【摘要】 曹树金教授主要探讨了学科领域内“技术热”与“传统冷”现象的成因、合理性、潜在问题及应对策略，认为学科建设需锚定国家战略，主动挖掘技术与传统的融合点，让技术为传统赋能、传统为技术锚定方向，从而发挥学科的独特价值。王曰芬教授剖析了“技术热”与“传统冷”趋势对学科基础理论构建与业务实践的影响，以及传统“根”与技术“器”的融合路径，提出技术主要为学科理论与实践赋能，传统是学科发展之根，二者深度融合，方能实现学科理论体系与业务实践的守正创新。裴雷教授从研究方法和学科价值层面探讨了“技术热”与“传统冷”现象的本质，分析了学术研究中“学”（理论传统）与“术”（技术方法）的辩证关系，提出技术与传统并非对立而是“一体两面”，所谓“冷”是对学术初心的坚守，“热”是对时代使命的担当；叉融合为路径、以场景创新为抓手，通过“中国思想、中国方法、中国实践”构建中国特色信息资源管理学科自主知识体系。曹高辉教授从课程设置、学生素养、师资能力、学术研究4个方面剖析了“技术热、传统冷”背景下的学科人才培养问题，并指出破解人才培养困境，必须回归教育本质，主要从3个方面着手：开发适配的教材、重构分层培养体系、打磨核心课程体系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Professor Cao Shujin examined the underlying drivers, inherent rationality, and potential implications of the shifting research focus from foundational theories to technology-driven agendas in Information Resource Management. He contends that disciplinary development must be strategically aligned with national priorities, necessitating a synergistic integration where technological innovation enriches traditional scholarship while core theories, in turn, provide epistemic grounding for technological applications—thereby actualizing the discipline’s distinctive intellectual contribution. Professor Wang Yuefen analyzed the ramifications of technological predominance and the concomitant decline of foundational research on both theoretical construction and professional practice within the discipline. Articulating a framework that distinguishes tradition as the disciplinary “root” from technology as the instrumental “vessel”, she argued that technology serves primarily to operationalize and substantiate disciplinary theory and practice. Only through their deep-seated integration can the discipline achieve the dual mandate of preserving core principles while pursuing theoretical and practical innovation. Professor Pei Lei investigated the essence of the technology-tradition dialectic from methodological and axiological perspectives. He elucidated the symbiotic relationship between “theory”(intellectual heritage) and “method”(technological approaches) in academic inquiry, positing that technology and tradition constitute not opposing forces but rather two integral dimensions of disciplinary identity. The perceived “chill” of traditional research, he suggested, represents steadfast commitment to foundational academic values, whereas the “fever” of technological research embodies responsiveness to contemporary imperatives. He advocated for cross-disciplinary integration as the pathway and contextual innovation as the catalyst for constructing an autonomous knowledge system for Information Resource Management with Chinese characteristics—one grounded in “Chinese thought, methodology, and practice”. Professor Cao Gaohui diagnosed challenges in talent cultivation under conditions of technological predominance from four interrelated dimensions: curricular design, student competencies, faculty capabilities, and academic research practices. He argued that addressing the talent cultivation dilemma requires returning to the essence of education through three strategic initiatives: developing pedagogically appropriate technological materials, reconstructing a vertically differentiated cultivation system spanning bachelor’s to doctoral programs, and refining the core curriculum to restore disciplinary distinctiveness.更多还原